This is how politicised the US judiciary is

26travelban-superjumbo.jpgAdmittedly, there may be many good reasons to be critical of new US President Trump (as this blog has pointed out already during his election campaign), or of his planned immigration policy. But the true problem of the US is not the President. The problem is the judiciary.

This is from yesterday’s New York Times:

A federal appeals court refused Thursday to reinstate President Trump’s revised travel ban, saying it “drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination.”

The decision, from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., was a fresh setback for the administration’s efforts to limit travel from several predominantly Muslim countries.


The court’s vote was 10 to 3. The court divided along ideological lines, with the three Republican appointees in dissent.

Writing for the majority, Chief Judge Roger L. Gregory said Mr. Trump’s statements on the campaign trail concerning Muslims showed that the revised order was the product of religious hostility. Such discrimination, he wrote, violates the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion.

“Then-candidate Trump’s campaign statements reveal that on numerous occasions, he expressed anti-Muslim sentiment, as well as his intent, if elected, to ban Muslims from the United States,” Judge Gregory wrote. He cited, as an example, a 2015 statement calling for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our representatives can figure out what is going on.”

What do we learn from this?

Firstly, that the judges vote along Party loyalties, Democrats v. Republicans. The law is, if anything, only of secondary importance.

Second, the reasons why the decree is deemed “unconstitutional” is not found within the decree itself, but in the person who made it. Had another President than Trump issued the same decree, the Appeals Court would have accepted it. Had Trump issued a decree against pre-dominantly Christian countries, the Appeals Court would have accepted it too.

This is simply not a reasonable way of deciding such matters, but it is the overt mis-use of judicial authority for political purposes.

Judicial activism is a problem not only if and when it is used for promoting causes such as sodo-“marriage”, or abortion “rights”, but it is a problem in itself. It unhingess the balance of constitutional powers, undermines the trust that citizens should have in public institutions, and destroys the state from within.